Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/02
Should it not be plural? ("Turkmen" is not the plural form of "Turkman" BTW. :) E4024 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, we also have a Category:Turkmens! --E4024 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Turkmens doesn't exist but Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments in Turkmens is in it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it to the correct name, "Turkmens". Sorry for taking your time. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
accidental creation Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Hello Airlines aircraft at Shahjalal International Airport. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I mistakenly capitalized the category and replaced it Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
parallel Category:Athene des Myron (Liebieghaus Frankfurt) dontworry (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- These are two different statues, with different inventory numbers, and with different posture and headgear which should be pretty obvious from the photos... --Anvilaquarius (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, Du hast recht! Es ist eine andere Statue! --dontworry (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Different statues. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Merge this into "History of Turkey". Same things. We have "decades" cats to use. E4024 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I boldly merged it to Category:History of Turkey. Indeed both this and Category:History of Turkey by period require a lot of work. (Maybe some Turkish POV is also included in these. For example "Ottoman period" refers to all the "Ottoman Empire" etc. :) After making the categorization by cities, events, people, years and decades of the past 100 years in Turkey, if I'm still alive and in Commons, I will try to arrange all these things. Sorry for your time. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Closed by the opener. It was a clear merge: not much to discuss.--E4024 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
wrong river in Umbertide, it is the Tiber. Sorry for creating that category LigaDue (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- As you have already moved it, I see nothing to discuss here. Therefore please close and archive the discussion. (If you are not familiar with how to do that, look at the previously closed discussions.) If you want this title to be deleted just write "speedy" within 2 {{s. (I wish I had colleagues who showed me things in such an easy-to-learn way. :) Greetings. --E4024 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I moved it to the correct name Category:Tiber in Umbertide. Closing. LigaDue (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- thx, took a time, wasn't that easy :-) Hope is correct now. LigaDue (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nope! (I left you a link to read. :) --E4024 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- thx, took a time, wasn't that easy :-) Hope is correct now. LigaDue (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted. Taivo (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Should this not begin with "2010"s? What do you think, User:GT1976, the tireless contributor. :) E4024 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- All "some decade in some place" type of categories seem to be in the "<PLACE> in the <DECADE>" type format, so I would rename either all of them or none of them but not one or some of them. ––Apalsola t • c 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- In a short time I made hundreds of time, place, people cats. I was so tired when I left it. Probably at some point I got confused. Now do not even wish to look back. If I was wrong to open this CfD, I apologize. BTW, even my mentor, User:GT1976, gets confused some times, especially between people belonging to 19th or 21st Centuries. :) Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replaced by Category:Adolf Gnauth sen. Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat redirected. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Lacks disambiguation - categories for units with this designation from different countries have already been created Kges1901 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kges1901: Since the category is now empty, I made it a disambiguation page. Is that what you had in mind? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I now think that disambig is the better option, and have made the category a disambig. This request can be closed. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had made it a disambiguation category, but I guess I forgot to save what I did. I will close this request. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I now think that disambig is the better option, and have made the category a disambig. This request can be closed. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing per above. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Skinny houses, Category:Narrow houses... Can't we merge them altogether? E4024 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Yeah, I think they can join. They are two adjectives with similar meaning, but narrow has a wider sense (easier to understand for non-native english speakers). At this moment Google provides 2.410.000 sites for "Narrow house" and only 238.000 for Skinny house". You can use the template Cat see also or Redirect. At your choice. --LBM1948 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merged at Narrow. As a non-native English speaker, if you say "skinny" to me I understand a person or an animal (someone that has skin) who is weak (or narrow :). Closing. --E4024 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It was a sudden death. Certainly quick consensus. Nothing to discuss here. --E4024 (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please delete this cat. Any admin visiting here? E4024 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- At first I did not notice that it was a new cat, opened by a newby. I emptied it for deletion. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Opened by mistake. Therefore I close it. Done. --E4024 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have content, and seems to be a really bizarre name. Sadads (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Now tagged as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Close--cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This category only contains works by the painter, not any media of the paiter herself (like photos where she appears). Hence, the category should be renamed similarly to many other cats in Category:Paintings by artist DmitTrix (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Open a Category:Paintings by Aida Hanemayer under Category:Aida Hanemayer please. --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not an experienced Commons user… is it a good idea to create Category:Aida Hanemayer with just a single item – the sub-category Category:Paintings by Aida Hanemayer? DmitTrix (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMHO it is a good idea even as an empty parent cat. --E4024 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- OK, done. Actually, there turned out to be a photo of the painter herself, which I've put into the parent category, so it's not empty anymore. I think this can be closed now. DmitTrix (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well done. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion due to typo in title. Content was moved to category with correct title. CeeGee (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Converted to speedy tag. BMacZero (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy delete due to typo in title. Category with correct title was created. CeeGee (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@CeeGee: You don't need to create a CfD for uncontroversial changes or deletions (deleting your own categories right after creating them is certainly uncontroversial). I converted these to {{Speedy}} deletes for you. BMacZero (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary to create this category per person. // sikander { talk } 12:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- IP spam. I marked it as empty for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Per convention, Yousafzai photos are categorized by year, not by clothing // sikander { talk } 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- IP spam. I marked it as empty for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
please delete: empty category with typo Vojtěch Veselý (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Empty, misspelled category needs to be deleted, Correct category is Category:Chemin de fer de Herzeele à Saint-Momelin,Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Category deleted by edit waring admin without discussion, it was useful as it put these buildings in an appropriate building category in the way that a line on field should not be in such a category. Oxyman (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Admin also deleted all categories content in what was a useful category. Oxyman (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Only a precisation: there was no edit war. The user created it, I deleted it and explained why (not to mention that "Stadium" is a problematic category), he seemingly was not content of the explanation and recreated it, and now the category is still there. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no word "precisation". There was indeed an edit war and why is Category:Stadiums problematic? You need to do more to justify your claims not just make them. the Admin himself told me to go to categories for discussion, hard to do that without category existing. Oxyman (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- The edit war is an invention of yours. Deal with it and don't insist. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- No it wasn't you deleted valid categories and then edit wared please answer my questions, they are valid questions and quite frankly stop bullying. Oxyman (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oxyman, please. There was no edit war. Please do not insist. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Just saying what you have already said is no valid response, There was an edit war and you are bullying. Please add more info and try and answer points put forward not just repeat yourself, you are the one making controversial edits please explain them. Oxyman (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Stadiums" is problematic because there's not an unambiguous criterium to define it. Seating capacity? There are 30.000-allseated sports venues that cannot be classified as "stadiums". There are 1.000 allseated sports venues that define themselves "Stadium" and are not. Indoor? There's the Millennium stadium that is sometimes completely covered , too. That's why "Stadium" is problematic and is preferred the category "Sports venue" (indeed "Stadium" is less and less used, as you can see the category is very old and has been first created in 2004; later came "sports venues" and generally new categories went there even though "Stadiums" kept on being used, but it's generally a mess because - as i said - the definition is ambiguous). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of edit waring and bullying happened before that response.... Then you should discus this at Category:Stadiums not just take out the ones in London, There is no reason for to take out stadiums in London before discussion at the Parent category. Oxyman (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Apart the fact that's "warring", not "waring", and that "precisation" does exist, please stop inventing false accusations of bullying and edit warring. And I repeat, "please stop". It's not an adequate way to approach a discussion. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Typo Meh, I was assuming use of English "precisation" Doesn't exist in English according to Google You have been Edit warring and bullying, claiming otherwise is false and I do not feel you need to be giving any lectures about approaching a discussion, one that you should be having at Category:Stadiums anyway. Not just deleting stadiums in London. Oxyman (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, we have just stated that Google is an English dictionary. Enough for me, sorry but I won't take part further in this discussion. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I stated no such thing, but yes Google can act like a dictionary and would provide relevant links it's not like you were doing so. If you don't want to discuss then I assume you cannot back up your edits and have no problem with them being reverted. Oxyman (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, we have just stated that Google is an English dictionary. Enough for me, sorry but I won't take part further in this discussion. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Typo Meh, I was assuming use of English "precisation" Doesn't exist in English according to Google You have been Edit warring and bullying, claiming otherwise is false and I do not feel you need to be giving any lectures about approaching a discussion, one that you should be having at Category:Stadiums anyway. Not just deleting stadiums in London. Oxyman (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Apart the fact that's "warring", not "waring", and that "precisation" does exist, please stop inventing false accusations of bullying and edit warring. And I repeat, "please stop". It's not an adequate way to approach a discussion. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of edit waring and bullying happened before that response.... Then you should discus this at Category:Stadiums not just take out the ones in London, There is no reason for to take out stadiums in London before discussion at the Parent category. Oxyman (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Stadiums" is problematic because there's not an unambiguous criterium to define it. Seating capacity? There are 30.000-allseated sports venues that cannot be classified as "stadiums". There are 1.000 allseated sports venues that define themselves "Stadium" and are not. Indoor? There's the Millennium stadium that is sometimes completely covered , too. That's why "Stadium" is problematic and is preferred the category "Sports venue" (indeed "Stadium" is less and less used, as you can see the category is very old and has been first created in 2004; later came "sports venues" and generally new categories went there even though "Stadiums" kept on being used, but it's generally a mess because - as i said - the definition is ambiguous). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Just saying what you have already said is no valid response, There was an edit war and you are bullying. Please add more info and try and answer points put forward not just repeat yourself, you are the one making controversial edits please explain them. Oxyman (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oxyman, please. There was no edit war. Please do not insist. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- No it wasn't you deleted valid categories and then edit wared please answer my questions, they are valid questions and quite frankly stop bullying. Oxyman (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- The edit war is an invention of yours. Deal with it and don't insist. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no word "precisation". There was indeed an edit war and why is Category:Stadiums problematic? You need to do more to justify your claims not just make them. the Admin himself told me to go to categories for discussion, hard to do that without category existing. Oxyman (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- The talk page at Category:Stadiums, see Category talk:Stadiums Clearly shows that the issue has been discussed there and there was disagreement to deletion of the category, I see no reason that Stadiums in London should not exist. Oxyman (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- That talk page "vote" is over ten years ago, anything more recent? Bidgee (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not from me as I have no objection to the use of stadium in categories, any more recent decision or discussion overturning the vote? Oxyman (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- That talk page "vote" is over ten years ago, anything more recent? Bidgee (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment Stadium has articles in 94 languages Wikis, so there is a definition of stadium and so this categories have a reason to be created. Tm (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest that this is not the appropriate place to discuss either user behavior or the hierarchy of Category:Stadiums as a whole. @Oxyman: If you have a complaint about Blackcat's behaviour, please make it at Commons:AN. I would suggest further discussion of the category be taken up at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums, unless there's something unique to stadiums in London. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You do realise that I went to Commons:AN first and was told to post here, it would be impossible to explain why this discussion was created without mention of the edit warring admins behavior. This whole problem is coursed by Admin refusal to look at and take appropriate action against other admins behavior and rather send me to another forum, so that type of comment is very much part of the problem and certainly not the solution. I can't see there is something unique about stadiums in London so no need to delete this category without prior discussion. Oxyman (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: No, I didn't realize that. If you were directed to CfD to deal with the problem of the category, great. Look no further. If you were directed here to deal with a case of user abuse (whether admin or otherwise), that was obviously a mistake. Someone's inappropriate behaviour doesn't negate the logic their argument around categorization, so I don't see how it's relevant here. On the contrary, the rightfulness of someone's argument doesn't excuse poor behaviour, so the final decision over the category should have limited impact on the decision at Commons:AN. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Well you would have been likely to realise if had you considered the above conversation unbiasedly for a moment. As I said previously it would be impossible to explain why this discussion was created without mention of the edit warring admins behavior. Also it is hard to understand any of the edit warring admins logic if they will not explain them using English words and without bullying or edit waring. As I said before and must say again as it is still an anaswered relevant point this whole problem is coursed by Admin refusal to look at and take appropriate action against other admins behavior and rather send me to another forum. Oxyman (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: No, I didn't realize that. If you were directed to CfD to deal with the problem of the category, great. Look no further. If you were directed here to deal with a case of user abuse (whether admin or otherwise), that was obviously a mistake. Someone's inappropriate behaviour doesn't negate the logic their argument around categorization, so I don't see how it's relevant here. On the contrary, the rightfulness of someone's argument doesn't excuse poor behaviour, so the final decision over the category should have limited impact on the decision at Commons:AN. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You do realise that I went to Commons:AN first and was told to post here, it would be impossible to explain why this discussion was created without mention of the edit warring admins behavior. This whole problem is coursed by Admin refusal to look at and take appropriate action against other admins behavior and rather send me to another forum, so that type of comment is very much part of the problem and certainly not the solution. I can't see there is something unique about stadiums in London so no need to delete this category without prior discussion. Oxyman (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing discussion, merged with discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums as it affects a greater number of categories than this one for London. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
employmentNeed Cooks? 2601:197:A80:6A0F:8520:51B:E89D:6743 04:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Should probably be merged with Category:Stubble fields, or at least connected with it somehow? El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- The cat is empty now, because I moved the two files in there to Category:Stubble fields as that cat is more correct for those images. Now that this cat is empty do whatever you deem correct with it; turn it into an RD or get it deleted. Best. --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- O.K. I accept that Stubble fields is a more expressive definition and Stubbles, therefore, can be deleted. So, I think the discussion must be closed ¿@Strakhov: ? --LBM1948 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have my doubts to have a parallel cat to Category:Family of Muhammad but I'm sure Dr. Ashashyou has an explanation as always. E4024 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Sir, sometimes i feel a sarcastic tone in your wards. I am not sure is it true or not. Anyway, my advice again is to start learning Arabic and reading about the Arabs & Islam if you are going to discuss issues related to both. Family of Muhamned was not created by me. Family of Muhamned can't accommodate all of Aal al-Bayt. Aal al-Bayt include some non Arabs, non-relatives of Muhammad PBUH as Suhaib al-Rumy صهيب الرومي and Salaman the persian سلمان الفارسي based on Sahih Hadith. Some scholars also include some Arabs but non-Relatives as Anas bin Malik أنس بن مالك and Zaid bin Thabit زيد بن ثابت. Take my advice start learning Arabic. Commons is for the whole world, it should be adopting a neutral point of view, always check from original sources that's tosay from mother tongue schokars. This is applicable for Arabic, Hindu, Chinese, Aerindians Australian aboriginals and so on. I am not a scholar but i am a humble academic and Physician that happens to read alot. Please don't make fun of me. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if I disturbed you. Maybe you should also review the history of your talk page and the cats you have created. Not only what happened to them but how the files are classified therein, making one think one should act as he or she preaches. This is why I said the doc would have an explanation. (Let me say it more openly: You make wrong classification but defend it perfectly, IMHO. One feels like who questions your contributions is wrong rather than your edits.) Sarcastic or not, let me confess you one thing: I open CfDs here without looking at who has opened a cat. While doing it I bet myself if I will imagine whose cat is that. (There are several users, some from far away geographies.) When I look at to whose TP my notification has gone, at a more than 90 % rate I see that I had correctly imagined who opened a cat that I saw necessary to discuss. Whatever, Sir, we can chat in Arabic whenever you wish, I offer the Turkish coffee, and you promise not to laugh at my many mistakes in that poetic language. (El Arabiyyeti lugaatu saabetun jidden.) With my highest esteem and regards. --E4024 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- My bad. Closing. I apologize for taking your time. --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate category of Category:YUL Condos. Since YUL is Montreal's airport code and therefore somewhat ambiguous, and Category:YUL Condos is the one linked with English and Spanish Wikipedia via Wikidata, I suggest we delete this one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have converted it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- And Jeangagnon had performed the redirect. This Cfd can now be closed, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The result was disambiguate, closing per nominator's request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The existence of a Category:Association football players of Dorog FC, as a subcat, implies we should change the title of this (or the other) cat. E4024 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Move to Category:Dorogi FC. That will also match with wikipedia articles. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Dorogi FC. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Category for a non-notable trademark; not needed. — Yerpo Eh? 06:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Túrelio. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty category Gżdacz (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I marked the empty cat for deletion; as there is nothing to discuss about one. Next time please do the same yourself and not open a CfD. --E4024 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Writings in? E4024 (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi E4024:
There are two problems about this category, I think:
1) It is a subcategory of itself
2) The terms used: "Writings in Uzbek" vs "Writings in Uzbek language" vs "Texts in Uzbek language" vs "Uzbek language" vs ... (?) (Because they are not only "signs"). My english, obviously, is very poor, but in my dictionary it appears writing: 1|the act of a person or thing that writes 2|: Written form. There are persons writing in Uzbek language and producing writings
Sorry, but I can't to solve both problems. Do it yourself; please :-) --LBM1948 (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I found the above on my TP and brought here. Just as a side note: Being a user from Turkey I try to take care of many issues regarding my country and Northern Cyprus, my adoptive country. I cannot take the responsibility of Uzbekistan now, next step will be all the Turkish (some say "Turkic" :) countries... --E4024 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have moved the files to the already existing Category:Uzbek text. Cheers. Strakhov (talk) 18:47, 21 Fptableebruary 2019 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: @E4024: La solución me parece aceptable. Ahora creo que habría que cerrar la discusión y redirigir hacia la nueva categoría o, mejor, eliminar la de "Wtitings...". --LBM1948 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Solo nos faltaba "Wtitings"... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Done: deleted, per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The same church as Category:Church of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in Belgrade Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I have move the Category to Category:Church of the Ascension, Belgrade. Greetings Tiefkuehlfan (talk) 13:50, 3. März 2019 (UTC)
Close: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
This mother category, and its subsequent subcategories containing the prefix "Stadiums", is problematic. There's no an unambiguous criterium to define a "stadium": neither its capacity (there are sports venues with more capacity of an average so-called "stadium"), neither its structure (the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff can be fully covered, a feature which is not associated with the common definition of "stadium"; the last consensus to keep this obsolete category is 12 years old, meanwhile the more appropriate "Sports venues" with their subcategorization by country, type and sport have flourished ever since. In my opinion "Stadiums" can be merged with "Sports venues" in order to avoid problematic doubles. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Stadium has articles in 94 languages Wikis, so there is a definition of stadium. Blackcat is trying to move this category to justify is actions in Category:Stadiums in London and cover is edit warring. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums in London. Tm (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Being in n languagues wiki doesn't make it less problematic here on Commons, which is another project. Have you something better than to go for personal attacks instead of discussing about the topic? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It was you that, abusing your administrator power, deleted Category:Stadiums in London and only after being reported that you opened a discussion. So, no, i´am not making a personal attack, i´am merely given a context to this discussion. 94 languages does show that there is a definition of stadium in hundreds of language, so there is a word, in several languages, there is a category for more than a decade, and there is a clear definition, at least in english, spanish, galician, portuguese and french. So, i dont understand why the need to delete something that has definition in 94 languages. Tm (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Being in n languagues wiki doesn't make it less problematic here on Commons, which is another project. Have you something better than to go for personal attacks instead of discussing about the topic? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Sergio that, regardless of what is used elsewhere, we need a workable definition. But perhaps we can find one rather than deleting. A roundish building with tiered seating? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be enough, @Themightyquill: , since the Palazzo dello Sport in Rome is a roundish building (in fact, an all-seated perfect 100-metre of diametre cylinder built in 1960 for the Olympics in Rome...). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- But why shouldn't it be called a stadium? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: because it's not :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's not Category:Things called Stadium. If it meets the definition, we can put it in the appropriate category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: because it's not :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- But why shouldn't it be called a stadium? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be enough, @Themightyquill: , since the Palazzo dello Sport in Rome is a roundish building (in fact, an all-seated perfect 100-metre of diametre cylinder built in 1960 for the Olympics in Rome...). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: It seems to be enclosed, so the common term would be arena or for commons, Category:Indoor arenas. So, an open-air roundish building with tiered seating? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest I question Themightyquill motives, He has seen the disagreement over at Category:Stadiums in London and feels he needs to support the edit warring admin. This whole problem is coursed by Admin refusal to look at and take appropriate action against other admins behavior and rather send me to another forum. If there is genuine consensus that this category and it's subcats should be deleted then so be it. But we should need more then views from an Edit warring admin and their support worker. Oxyman (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: I'm not sure what you're talking about a consensus to delete or my support for anyone else. My comments above should be clearly taken as suggesting that a general definition of "stadium" can be reached, and the category tree can be kept. If you're not interested in contributing to a discussion of the Category:Stadium category tree, then please don't feel the need to contribute at all. Motivations are not relevant to an argument over a logical categorization structure. Commons:Assume good faith remains a guideline here on commons. Your personal attacks are not welcome or appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- yeas Commons:Assume good faith does remains a guideline here on commons, therefore you should not have launched into an attack on me whilst totally ignoring the edit warring admins abuses. The only reason a general definition of "stadium" is now needed is to cover up the Edit warring admins actions which remain relevent. So pretence that this discussion is needed is just disruptive to commons. Oxyman (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: I'm not sure what you're talking about a consensus to delete or my support for anyone else. My comments above should be clearly taken as suggesting that a general definition of "stadium" can be reached, and the category tree can be kept. If you're not interested in contributing to a discussion of the Category:Stadium category tree, then please don't feel the need to contribute at all. Motivations are not relevant to an argument over a logical categorization structure. Commons:Assume good faith remains a guideline here on commons. Your personal attacks are not welcome or appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest I question Themightyquill motives, He has seen the disagreement over at Category:Stadiums in London and feels he needs to support the edit warring admin. This whole problem is coursed by Admin refusal to look at and take appropriate action against other admins behavior and rather send me to another forum. If there is genuine consensus that this category and it's subcats should be deleted then so be it. But we should need more then views from an Edit warring admin and their support worker. Oxyman (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I kinda agree with Sergio that Stadiums is not a well-defined term and sports venues is a better term but sports venues is not the most intuitive thing when you're looking to see what category to put a photo of a football/soccer venue (I know I could have just said football but my American English insists putting soccer in there). So I basically agree with Themightyquill, let's agree on a definition and categorize accordingly so it's the least disruptive course. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- It would seem suspicious that after what 12 years of no problems we have suddenly forgoten what a Stadium is and covering up the situations that led to this discussion is what led to the edit warring admin abusing hiss admin tools. A proper discussion on this cannot be had without knowing the situations that led to the creation of this discussion. Oxyman (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: indeed, you rightly caught the point: you named "soccer" the sport that's, on Commons, "Association football" (the discipline's proper name) though en.wiki call it only "Football". We need to name the things in unambiguous way, as you correctly said.
@Oxyman: , please, you're kindly invited to stop this rant. Apart that this is not the place to discuss your personal issues towards one or more admins, the thing is becoming annoying and also offensive towards other administrators. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: indeed, you rightly caught the point: you named "soccer" the sport that's, on Commons, "Association football" (the discipline's proper name) though en.wiki call it only "Football". We need to name the things in unambiguous way, as you correctly said.
- It would seem suspicious that after what 12 years of no problems we have suddenly forgoten what a Stadium is and covering up the situations that led to this discussion is what led to the edit warring admin abusing hiss admin tools. A proper discussion on this cannot be had without knowing the situations that led to the creation of this discussion. Oxyman (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Blackcat: you're kindly invited to stop attacking other users in an attempt to cover up your previous actions and no it is not just me, it remains relevant to point out the events leading to this discussion. The disruption to commons caused by your actions and subsequent discussions started to cover up those actions bring not just you into disrepute but the admin system as a whole Oxyman (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow and Blackcat: Could you offer any serious criticism of the definition "open-air round building with tiered seating" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of its dimensions? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- As Sergio says, size would seem to matter as far as stadia since stadium tends to imply a large sports venue. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow and Blackcat: Could you offer any serious criticism of the definition "open-air round building with tiered seating" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: Do you think dimensions are necessary? Is there a small "open-air round building with tiered seating" that you think could not be considered a stadium? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's the problem. Is this a stadium? Is this a stadium (yet this is the venue of a first-tier rugby union team of Italy)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no problem, lets not pretend there is, there are oddities in categories for most things, you cannot disprove the whole by pointing to an exception. Your whole issue is just an attempt to cover up your previous actions, please avoid edit warring and attacking other users in your responses Oxyman (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's the problem. Is this a stadium? Is this a stadium (yet this is the venue of a first-tier rugby union team of Italy)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: No. Neither of those examples are round. They don't even have seating all the way around. So they obviously don't match the definition. I fail to see the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would add, however, that I find many of the subcategories of Category:Stadiums by city totally unnecessary. Very few cities have more than one stadium. I fail to see the need for Category:Stadiums in Colombo when Category:Sports venues in Columbo + Category:Stadiums in Sri Lanka would more than suffice, or Category:Stadiums in Baranavičy when Category:Sports venues in Baranavičy and Category:Stadiums in Belarus would be fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Very few cities have more than one stadium." really? are you living on the same planet as me? I have not been everywhere in the world but most cities I have been to have more then one. off course if we have to meet our own continuously changing definitions then we can make any claims we want. All a bit excessive just to avoid examination of edit warring admins actions Oxyman (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Most major metropolitan cities have more than one, but major metropolitan cities are a very small percentage of the world's cities. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- So we avoid all relevant points by arguing what a city is, Go argue your concerns at Category:Cities not here, it not relevant here. Oxyman (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about what a city is. A substantial proportion of the categories in Category:Stadiums by city only have one stadium in that city. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looks to me like blurring the definition of city, can't see what other use that post had. A substantial proportion of the categories in Category:Stadiums by city has more then one stadium so what? It not relevant anyway Oxyman (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyman: What's your argument here? That it's still worth sub-categorizing Category:Stadiums in City X even if there's only one stadium in City X? If small country has only three or four stadiums, do we need Category:Stadiums in Country X by city and Category:Stadiums in city X before we get to the one stadium in that city? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- It would be an issue to take up in those individual categories, not here. Suffice to say that there is more then one stadium in London, so your concerns do not explain why the Edit warring admin abusing his tools deleted that category. Oxyman (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about what a city is. A substantial proportion of the categories in Category:Stadiums by city only have one stadium in that city. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong @Themightyquill: , I agree that the Olympic Stadium in Rome or Twickenham Stadium in London is actually a "Stadium". But the definition of "Stadium" is blurred, whereas "Sports venue" is not (a venue either is for sports or it's not: we know exactly what to include and what not; a "stadium" is a problematic category in which can be included items that are not "stadia". More in general, the category is a mathematics set which must not have ambiguous criteria). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: I don't understand the problem. You're saying its definition is blurred, but I've provided a definition that you haven't yet found clear fault with. Is there a translation problem because of how "stadio" is used in Italian? Does your reference to a mathematics set refer to en:Stadion (unit)? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's unconvincing to me, @Themightyquill: : there are still lots of structures which proper names (often exagerately, I concede) contain the term "Stade", "Stadium", "Stadio", "Stadion" and so on but that are not stadia according the criteria you provided. Of course I appreciate the fact that you tried to provide with a definition of "stadium" as less ambiguous a possible, yet I have still doubts about this definition. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: I don't understand the problem. You're saying its definition is blurred, but I've provided a definition that you haven't yet found clear fault with. Is there a translation problem because of how "stadio" is used in Italian? Does your reference to a mathematics set refer to en:Stadion (unit)? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- So we avoid all relevant points by arguing what a city is, Go argue your concerns at Category:Cities not here, it not relevant here. Oxyman (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Most major metropolitan cities have more than one, but major metropolitan cities are a very small percentage of the world's cities. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Very few cities have more than one stadium." really? are you living on the same planet as me? I have not been everywhere in the world but most cities I have been to have more then one. off course if we have to meet our own continuously changing definitions then we can make any claims we want. All a bit excessive just to avoid examination of edit warring admins actions Oxyman (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would add, however, that I find many of the subcategories of Category:Stadiums by city totally unnecessary. Very few cities have more than one stadium. I fail to see the need for Category:Stadiums in Colombo when Category:Sports venues in Columbo + Category:Stadiums in Sri Lanka would more than suffice, or Category:Stadiums in Baranavičy when Category:Sports venues in Baranavičy and Category:Stadiums in Belarus would be fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- We also have a huge number of categories for things named "Hotel" and "Hôtel" (see Category:Hôtels de ville in France for example) that don't fit in Category:Hotels. Should we therefore merge Categor:Hotels into Category:Accommodation buildings? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- But Hôtel de ville means "City Hall" in French (can mean town hall as well) and clearly is not the same as hotels. Stade generally means "stadium" but we can obviously not include sports venues with the name Stade in them if they are not big enough to be accepted as a stadium. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Hotel de ville" is just one example. You can tell if a stadium meets our chosen definition of stadium just by looking at an image, but that's not true of all buildings named hotel. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- But Hôtel de ville means "City Hall" in French (can mean town hall as well) and clearly is not the same as hotels. Stade generally means "stadium" but we can obviously not include sports venues with the name Stade in them if they are not big enough to be accepted as a stadium. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no problem here, it is easy to find a definition for Stadium, we just have to use a dictionary. We must use common terms and definitions not terms and definitions we arbitrarily make up. Stadium is a common word understood by millions, we can't amend it's meaning on personal whims. We can't account for translations between every language and variations between them. We are using English on this project so comprehension of English required before making controversial edits and decisions such as deleting this category or it's subcats. This discussion should be shut down as it serves no purpose. Oxyman (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Simply, "Stadium" is problematic because it allows exceptions that a category shouldn't allow. It's like putting dogs in the "Wolves" category because they look like and are of the same family. "Sports venue" is unambiguous and we should adopt unambiguous names at all (at least is what we have to tend). "Stadiums" simply is unfit. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- You can make the same or similar argument for any existing category, under your arguments no category could possible be defined at all. Oxyman (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hope to have exposed my point, @Themightyquill: . -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- What point? Mind sharing? Themightyquill has just told you he does not wish to join your conflict https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThemightyquill&type=revision&diff=340987949&oldid=340922228 Oxyman (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hope to have exposed my point, @Themightyquill: . -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- You can make the same or similar argument for any existing category, under your arguments no category could possible be defined at all. Oxyman (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I found a definiton here: wiktionary:Stadium Evrik (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Do not delete this. Refine it. Evrik (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing new here in two weeks, so I'm closing on policy grounds as seeing no consensus to delete this category. On its merits (a secondary, but relevant consideration) a stadium is clearly a type of building, attested by articles across multiple wikis. As to purpose, cases can easily be a subcategory of Sports venues or Music venues, or both, as in Wembley Stadium. Individual cases falls into this category or not on their own merits, but that does not mean the category should not exist. ---Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Should be Category:British prisoners of war of World War I, in full, and to match the exsting Category:British prisoners of war of World War II; and the parent category Category:Prisoners of war in World War I. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I agree with spelling out "prisoners of war" but wouldn't "Prisoners of war from the United Kingdom in World War I" (etc) be less ambigious? A British prisoner of war could be a prisoner of war who is British or a prisoner of the British. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Fine by me, but we'll need to change all the equivalents for other countries, see Category:Prisoners of war in World War I . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that spelling the words out is better. I also agree with Themightyquill's wording suggestion. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Prisoners of war from the United Kingdom in World War I and equivalents. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Should be Category:Ladies' Home Journal (1948), using captals for the title, like the parent Category:Ladies' Home Journal. Same for sister categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- The capitalization doesn't even require discussion. I note, however, that most of the categories in Category:Ladies' Home Journal are in the format "Category:Ladies' Home Journal, XXXX". Is there a clear standard here? I don't have a preference, except that it would be less work if I could just remove parentheses from 3, rather than adding parenthesss to 24 categories. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The capitalization doesn't even require discussion. So I changed it. End of discussion. You're welcome, everyone. There are bigger fish to fry. --Animalparty (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Any reason this category uses "authors" instead of "writers" like the parent category? Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- No reason at all. I apologize. Many years ago I was creating a lot of categories in an attempt to sort out a lot of files under the huge category "African Americans" and I didn't follow best practices.--Kenmayer (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:African-American writers with redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Libava is just the historic Russian name of the city that is now known as Liepāja. I can see that it may be a point to have a different category for when the city belonged to the Russian empire, but I do think it is better to have just one such category, regardless of what the city was called at the time and which country it belonged to. Blue Elf (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, though someone seeing that as the place of registration might try to use it in the future. Redirect to Category:Ships registered in Liepāja. On the other hand, delete Category:Transport in Libava in favour of Category:Transport in Liepāja. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Ships registered in Liepāja. Category:Transport in Libava deleted in favour of Category:Transport in Liepāja. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This category is a duplicate of Category:Argent and azure in heraldry, should be renamed or merged. -- User: Perhelion 00:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- We need only one category! We can delete this cat! --Jürgen Krause (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I support merging to the "argent and azure" name, to have the words in alphabetical order (although some similar cats aren't in alphabetical order). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. This cat should be kept but only as a redirect to Category:Argent and azure in heraldry. @W!B:: any objection? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, don't keep it! it's just irritating forever -- sarang♥사랑 08:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- With a "correct" tincture
a/bfiles would be categorized to the "correct" Category:Argent and azure in heraldry; but to this discussed category, filesarehad been only assigned with the "hard categorization"[[Category:Azure and argent in heraldry]]. Such "hard categorizations" are of course more difficult to maintain than done with a template, and IMHO they are unwanted and erroneous - even if categorizing correctly to Argent and azure in heraldry! My preferred solution of this problem would be to change the tincture at all files in that discussed category to the template's version, which automatically would correct the category; and remove then the "hard" cat (e.g. using Hotcat). -- sarang♥사랑 08:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC) - @Perhelion: All merging is now done; you may delete it. -- sarang♥사랑 07:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. -- User: Perhelion 13:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Could this be moved to Category:People of Turkey by ethnicity to match the other categories in Category:People by country by ethnicity? In use on Commons "Turkish people" suggests ethnicity, not citizenship (see Category:People of China vs Category:Chinese people, or Category:People of Latvia vs Category:Latvian people.) Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- This should be done, as it can then be correctly categorized under Category:People by country by ethnicity. Josh (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- That cat has been opened quite recently, right, Josh? Sometimes one feels like s/he is crying in the dark, but... Let's hope that Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:People of Turkish descent in Turkey is also correctly closed. (Sometimes I am even thinking about conspiracy theories against Turks in Commons; you know, things like people opening new user names and trying to provoke the only hard-working Turkish contributor in Commons, so that we can perhaps get rid of her/him. Forget it, just a joke! :) I agree with you. --E4024 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and E4024: Closed (no opposition, move Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin to Category:People of Turkey by ethnicity) Josh (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1. Duplication of the existing Category:Kumbh Mela in Allahabad . 2. Official name of the city isː Allahabad. Previous Kumbh Mela festivals (2001,2007,2013) are in Category:Kumbh Mela in Allahabad
Editː In case the change of the city name is completed (as political will was announced in mediaː eg. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/uttar-pradesh-cabinet-renames-allahbad-to-prayagraj/articleshow/66234532.cms or https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/yogi-adityanath-takes-allahabad-to-prayagraj-after-443-years-a-recap-of-history-1368216-2018-10-15#close-overlay - the systemic change of the relevant categories should be done (including categoryː History of Allahabad). Oo91 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Oo91: Closed (no opposition, Redirect Category:Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj to Category:Kumbh Mela in Allahabad for now, consider rename at parent Category:Allahabad level) Josh (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Should this category be renamed to "No entry signs"? Because I think "No entrance" means there are no doors or gates. そらみみ (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @そらみみ: You are right. Even though some dictionaries claim that "entrance" is also the process, not only the place - included photos contain only the phrase "no entry". I think, we can rename the root category as you proposed and harmonize its subcategories immediately.
- However, my original effort was to distinguish "walk/pedestrian entry" from "ride/vehicle entry". This trial was unsuccessful. Many languages have quite different words for the two meanings: (de: die Eintritt & die Einfart, cs: vstup & vjezd, ru: вход & въезд) and even have no common word for both meanings together, while English (French, Italian, Spain etc.) seems to be not able to distinguish them clearly. Now we have various similar categories which are a bit overlapping each others: No entrance signs (=No entry signs), Do not enter signs (without subcategories by country), No entry road signs by country (without its main category), Vehicles forbidden signs, Pedestrians forbidden signs, No trespassing signs and maybe No Boarding signs. Some languages have no specific word for "tresspassing" and when the sign says "no entry", it is not specifiable whether the "entry" is a "tresspassing" in such case, etc. That's why we have a big mishmash in the category tree. The concepts and phrases are too language-specific or even country-specific. --ŠJů (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- The move is requested at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves#No entrance – please modify or oppose if needed. --ŠJů (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: I see. Maybe it's better to ask more people, because in some languages, it's hard to categorize a sign without other information.--そらみみ (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the requests.--そらみみ (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: In the future, please wait for the CfD to close with consensus before enacting a move request. This gives everyone an opportunity to comment here and reach consensus. Thanks! Josh (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@そらみみ and ŠJů: Closed (already done by ŠJů (talk · contribs), move Category:No entrance signs to Category:No entry signs) Josh (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hard to seperate images and categories correct in this category and Category:Grunewald, so it would be the best to just delete this category. GPSLeo (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Closed (no objection; empty category speedy delete) Josh (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Could this be renamed Category:Civilian internment in World War I and removed from Category:Prisoners of war in World War I? Themightyquill (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Closed (no objection; move Category:Internment in World War I to Category:Civilian internment in World War I; remove from Category:Prisoners of war in World War I.) Josh (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This category was created, presumably in response to WLM, for content which actually pertained to the Copper Center Lodge, a place located in a different part of Alaska and which was not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, a redirect to the retargeted category (Category:Copper Center Lodge) would not be appropriate. Only one file remained which actually pertains to the historic district and there are only two other files pertaining to that community. If you feel that this is sufficient enough reason to keep this category, then go ahead, but I feel it's a waste of users' time wading through underpopulated categories like that. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS: Closed (no objection; empty category) Josh (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Country has officially changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- If there are signs with the words "Republic of Macedonia" we should make a special cat for them, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Historic signs in the Republic of North Macedonia? Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer to have the words "Republic of Macedonia" in the title. --E4024 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note @E4024: This category is a "signs in location" category, so should contain all signs located within North Macedonia/Rep of Macedonia, regardless of content. If you want a category for media showing specific words on a sign, that would be a "content on signs" category, and you are welcome to create something like Category:Republic of Macedonia on signs in that tree. Josh (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Historic signs in the Republic of North Macedonia? Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) has already prematurely moved Category:Signs in the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Signs in North Macedonia without participating in the discussion. It seems it was part of a bigger mess they created moving similar categories. That said, I don't see a problem with the move itself. @Abzeronow and E4024: Can I close this as done, or do either of you have any objection to the move? Josh (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't object to the move or closing this. Abzeronow (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Josh is forcing too much my intellectual capacity. I am abstaining, do what you deem correct. --E4024 (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- lol, Josh has probably spent too many hours doing this... Josh (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Abzeronow and E4024: Closed (no objection; moved Category:Signs in the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Signs in North Macedonia.) Josh (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This must be renamed to "Şehzade Mosque", just as in Wikidata. Proper name. (A.k.a. "Şehzadebaşı") E4024 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (no objection, move Category:Prince's Mosque (Istanbul) to Category:Şehzade Mosque. Retain original as a redirect.) Josh (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Empty + useless Yanguas (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yanguas: Close (no objection; speed delete) Josh (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
As a native English speaker I have no idea what "Ice in technical background" is supposed to mean, and the current contents seem confused and arbitrary. I suggest we delete and upmerge the subcategories to parent Ice. Once there, further sorting can take place, such as moving Ice cores to Ice in science, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly support doing something with this, and what you describe sounds reasonable. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shawn in Montreal and Auntof6: Closed (no objections, upmerge Category:Ice in technical background to Category:Ice.) Josh (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it redundant to Category:Diagrams of historic road signs of Taiwan? Jusjih (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Most probably. Please merge them. --E4024 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Zambia also has such a duality. IMHO it is absurd. --E4024 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jusjih and E4024: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Diagrams of old road signs of Taiwan into Category:Diagrams of historic road signs of Taiwan) Josh (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Empires Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why -- because there aren't any today? I'd rather see all the others moved into this category, and possibly rename this one to "Empires by name". --Auntof6 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand. The only non-former empire we have is Category:Galactic Empire (Star Wars) inside Category:Fictional empires. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Even that one was a long, long time ago. BMacZero (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Themightyquill. Every empire in Category:Empires is a former empire, and even if a new empire was formed it would be so much of a minority that I'd favor creating Category:Current empires instead. BMacZero (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rephrasing/elaborating for Themightyquill: Sorry, I guess I left out some of my thinking. You didn't give a reason for upmerging; I was asking if the reason was that all (nonfictional) empires are former, and that therefore specifying "former" isn't necessary. Whatever the case, I see value in a category that includes all individual empires. Since Category:Empires includes categories for many individual empires, I thought those could be moved down to this category, Category:Former empires, to help organize Category:Empires. If we don't want to call it "former", maybe it could be renamed to "Empires by name". If we had a category "Empires by name", other entries might need to go into it as well, such as subcats of Category:Colonial empires, Category:Empires and kingdoms of India, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand. The only non-former empire we have is Category:Galactic Empire (Star Wars) inside Category:Fictional empires. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, BMacZero, for actually making me laugh outloud (and to both you and Auntof6 for your thoughts.) If I'm understanding Auntof6 correctlly, I think this could work:
- I started looking at this as I was sorting through Category:Former monarchies (of which Category:Former empires is a subcategory). I'm wondering now if it (or Category:Empires if we merge) belongs there. Do all empires have a single Emperor/Empress ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That structure seems good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Auntof6, and BMacZero: Closed (consensus to merge Category:Former empires into Category:Empires and adopt structure as laid out by Themightyquill) Josh (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Gumruch proposed that this category be merged into Category:Skeletons in art. It would seem preferrable to me that we distinguish the skeletons by species, and therefore I favor making Category:Human skeletons in art a child of Category:Skeletons in art and moving most of the content from there into it. BMacZero (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gumruch and BMacZero: Closed (no objections; categorize Category:Human skeletons in art under Category:Skeletons in art and categorize media accordingly) Josh (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Mtaylor848 requested that this category be moved to Category:Briggate for the reason "By far the most significant, all other sub categories so called". However, the reverse move was just performed in December 2018 by Delinker. I believe the current name is better and I contest the statement about the subcategories; nearly all of them use "Briggate, Leeds". BMacZero (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Previous move requested by Schlosser67. BMacZero (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have no preference whatsoever as to which Briggate is the "most significant" one. There are various ways of judging that, and which is the correct one? For example, based on the importance for road transportation, one could also argue that Briggate in Shipley as part of the A657 trunk road is more significant. The one in Leeds is more important for the retail trade, on the other hand. IMHO the mere fact that there are other streets with the same name requires the addition of the place name. With my renaming request I was merely following what I perceived to be the custom on Commons, and hoped to free up Category:Briggate for a conversion into a disambiguation category. --Schlosser67 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have converted Category:Briggate into a DAB page, although the Leeds street is currently the only article on WP, we have 4. I will look at moving the WP article in a few days but that doesn't mean this needs moving since primary topics on Commons have a higher threshold. Note that just because most others are disambiguated doesn't mean this one needs disambiguting though per w:Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Don't add unnecessary disambiguators simply for consistency however it looks like this one does require disambiguation. There also seems to be Briggates in Ilkley, Brighouse, Keightley, Belfast and Elland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mtaylor848, BMacZero, Schlosser67, and Crouch, Swale: Closed (keep Category:Briggate, Leeds; dab at Category:Briggate) Josh (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Writings in? Is Hindu a language? E4024 (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's just a redirect, but it's a nonsensical one. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; delete Category:Writings in Hindu) Josh (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Even if it were a proper noun (I do not know) is it normal to use two different alphabets in one title? E4024 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Both good points. Category names are generally supposed to be in English: not any other language, and not a combination of languages. They also should be in lower case except for the first word and proper nouns. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Auntof6: Any objection to Category:Cantonese soy sauce pan-fried noodles for the name? Josh (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I give you a general power-of-attorney for changes in my name, except Turks/Turkey related CfDs. --E4024 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- No objection from me. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Auntof6: Any objection to Category:Cantonese soy sauce pan-fried noodles for the name? Josh (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6 and E4024: Closed (no objections; move Category:Cantonese Soy Sauce Pan-fried Noodles 豉油皇炒麵 to Category:Cantonese soy sauce pan-fried noodles) Josh (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Reconsider title and its relationship with Fire engines in Italy E4024 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Firefighting vehicles in Italy (parallel with Category:Firefighting vehicles in the United States) with Category:Fire engines of Italy as a subcategory. We don't want images of the sportcars firefighters drive on their days off. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; move Category:Vehicles of Firefighters in Italy to Category:Firefighting vehicles in Italy) Josh (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we also have films of these signs? I propose formally to ban IPs from opening new cats. Really. E4024 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with deleting this category. Please make your nomination regarding restricting IP's at the Commons:Village Pump. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; delete Category:Photographs of no overtaking signs and upmerge content) Josh (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant with Category:Road cuttings? Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Given that en:Road cutting redirects to en:Cut (earthmoving), I would say yes. Upmerge the content and redirect Category:Road cuttings to Category:Road cuts. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking of redirecting in the other direction to fit with Category:Cuttings (transport infrastructure). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that makes more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking of redirecting in the other direction to fit with Category:Cuttings (transport infrastructure). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Road cuts into Category:Road cuttings) Josh (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This category already exists at Category:Al Masry SC; so I think that this one should be deleted. Ben5218 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, one should be deleted.--Ashashyou (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ben5218 and Ashashyou: Closed (No objections; merge Category:Al-Masry SC into Category:Al Masry SC) Josh (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Requesting renaming to Category:Tenpozan Bridge, according to http://osakaharbor-info.com/PDF/nyusyukkou201807_en.pdf by The Osaka Harbor Information Center for Security of Ship Navigation. そらみみ (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@そらみみ: Closed (No objections; move Category:Tenpouzan Bridge to Category:Tenpozan Bridge) Josh (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this about "a map" or "maps"? Is this about the "Arab world" or "Arabic", language used in certain maps? E4024 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Thanks for spotting this. Despite being very old, it's obviously a problem. A) It's referring to maps plural. B) It's a subcategory of Category:Maps of the world before Columbus but "Arab World" (unlike Category:Islamic Golden Age) is not a purely historical concept. C) It's a sub-category of the almost empty Category:Arab world, containing only this category and Category:Caves in Arabic world. It makes no sense to categorize caves according to language or even culture. I would recommend:
- Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Themightyquill: I think Category:Arabic world and Category:Arab world should both be merged into Category:Arab League. However, that probably requires a bigger discussion. Category:Caves in Arabic world can be deleted. There is no need to group several "caves in country" categories on the basis of a political arrangement (Category:Caves in NATO, Category:Caves in the Western world, Category:Caves in Christian countries, anyone?). I agree with moving Category:Arabic world map to Category:World maps from the Islamic Golden Age. Josh (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Category:Arabic world in favour of Category:Arab world. Deleted Category:Caves in Arabic world. Moved Category:Arabic world map to Category:World maps from the Islamic Golden Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe this cat should better be renamed in English, and then "categorized" accordingly. E4024 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This specifically refers to de:Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen, so "Distinguishing marks of unconstitutional organisations (Germany)" or "Symbols of unconstitutional organizations (Germany)" would be possible translations, though we can also keep the original German term (as a proper name without an exact English equivalent). --Te750iv (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Symbols of organizations deemed unconstitutional under German law. It is a bit wordy, but this is a very specific categorization which could easily be misconstrued, so I think it is warranted. Josh (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Symbols of organizations deemed unconstitutional under German law. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Who is Tarboosh? Or is it a thing with "t"? What is the difference with "fez"? Why "Westerner", a one-person specific cat? E4024 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:People with fez, which I recommend renaming to Category:People wearing fezzes (See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:People with fez). Josh (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:People wearing fezzes. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
No need for this category, half of all pictures made in Delft can be categorized in this category because they offer a "view of the city". Tukka (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. Category:Citscapes of Delft or Category:Skylines of Delft could be created, but that's not what was in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this category needed as a subcategory of "Cuisine of Armenia"? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think the same could be said for most categories in Category:Cuisine by country vs Category:Food by country, but some people think the second layer of categorization is important for food-related things that aren't actally food, like restaurants, magazines about food, etc? Category:Cuisine is a sub-category of Category:Food but Category:Food of county x is often a sub-category of Category:Cuisine of country x. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Shofet tsaddiq, IMHO cuisine cats should be subcats of food. If you grow potatoes in Armenia, that is food of Armenia, when you make a delicious dish with those potatoes, that is cuisine. --E4024 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note, Category:Cuisine is a sub-cat of Category:Food, thus it is appropriate for "Cuisine of country" to be a sub-cat of "Food of country". There does seem to be a difference between them so they can be distinct categories. Josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Josh, I see that we concur. You can close this CfD as Shofet tsaddiq was a fictional user name of some established user, "IMHO". I doubt they will re-appear. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note, Category:Cuisine is a sub-cat of Category:Food, thus it is appropriate for "Cuisine of country" to be a sub-cat of "Food of country". There does seem to be a difference between them so they can be distinct categories. Josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The quesiton is larger than Armenia. If you want to nominated Category:Food, Category:Cuisine, Category:Food by country, and Category:Cuisine by country you are welcome to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The parent cats of this one with those of Suffragettes have almost practically been reversed and this brings about strange appearances for individual women articles in various language WPs. I could -maybe- correct the mess by myself but I thought a discussion would be helpful for those colleagues who -sometimes- tend to use our "categories" as if they were "tags" in Instagram. E4024 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wikidata has decided that "Suffragist" is any women's suffrage activist, and "Suffragette" is a member of the British "Women's Social and Political Union." This ignores the fact that en:Suffragette does not make this differentiation (nor does common usage) and that we also have Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union. Moreover, a "suffragist" could apply to anyone advocating for anyone's right to vote, not just women's right to vote. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I propose the redirection of Category:Suffragists to Category:Suffrage activists, and the redirection of Category:Suffragettes (ambiguous) to Category:Women's suffrage activists (in Category:Women's suffrage and Category:Suffrage activists). Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union fits nicely in Category:Women's suffrage activists. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, with redirects or disambiguation at the original cats. And while we're at it, do we really need Category:Suffragettes wearing fur? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nearly all these photos are named with suffragettes, often by the ladies theirself. Why should we rename it? It is interesting, so many woman of the suffragette movement belongs to the middle and upper class, the furs show. -- Kürschner (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, with redirects or disambiguation at the original cats. And while we're at it, do we really need Category:Suffragettes wearing fur? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I propose the redirection of Category:Suffragists to Category:Suffrage activists, and the redirection of Category:Suffragettes (ambiguous) to Category:Women's suffrage activists (in Category:Women's suffrage and Category:Suffrage activists). Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union fits nicely in Category:Women's suffrage activists. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, Category:Suffragists or whatever name supplants it certainly should not be specific to the UK. The term is used equally for women's suffrage advocates in the United States and, I presume, elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English thus whatever consistent solution found by the native speakers would for sure better than anything I can propose. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Suffrage activists and Category:Women's suffrage activists etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Can an admin help stop this kind of wrong categorization? Certain users (myself included) suffer a lot trying to cope with these new cats which are building on already wrong (and in cases POV) categorization that several people here are trying to correct/put in an order. Let us all please try to be more constructive. E4024 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Some user created Wikidata Infobox. I only added Wikidata Infobox.--Allforrous (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Given that most of Turkey is in Asia, this definitely seems strange. Most categories in Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin would also fit under Category:Turkish people of Asian descent. I'd suggest deleting. I'm not sure what you mean by "new" though, E4024 - the caegory is nearly 2 years old. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No objection. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the exact meaning of this category against Check mark, which common meaning is also "yes", but on the other hand the definition is "that these check marks have the opposite meaning in some cultures."? -- User: Perhelion 12:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's a duplicate of Category:Check marks. --Niridya (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)- Comment I agree the name could change. As for being a duplicate of Category:Check marks -- when I created the category, it only contained icons representing the check itself, with no box, background or other surrounding elements. Since then other files were added to the category (particularly the emoji ones added by Ebrahim, and this one added by Cathy Richards), but IMO they should be moved to Category:Check marks or a relevant subcategory, and this category renamed to better reflect its purpose. --Waldir talk 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- We could rename the Cat to Category:Green check icons as Category:Green icons!? -- User: Perhelion 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the rename. --Niridya (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- We could certainly have Category:Green check icons as a subcategory of Category:Yes check icon, and perhaps rename the latter to Category:Simple check icons or something similar. That way we'd still have a place to categorize files like File:Cornflower blue check.svg and File:Black check.svg without defaulting them to the parent Category:Check marks. What do you think? --Waldir talk 15:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- We could rename the Cat to Category:Green check icons as Category:Green icons!? -- User: Perhelion 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Check mark icons and sort files appropriately. There are not enough yet to bother with 'by color' categories, but these can be created if the need arises in the future. Josh (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: It's a good idea I think. --Niridya (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Closing: Category was renamed to Category:Check mark icons. Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
According to User:Pivox, Turkey does not have "Naval Forces", but has a Command for "Naval Forces". I hate to point at people, but this user has left a lot of damage behind. Regrettably there are few Turkish contributors (or other people who have a sincere, constructive interest towards Turkey) to repair the damage and build on. Therefore I cannot promise to do the job alone. (In the last days I made hundreds of new cats writing with two fingers and with little information technology.) I will continue. E4024 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed all three Turkish Armed Forces have "plural" names: (Turkish) Land Forces ("Turkish Army", but we have 4 Armies), (Turkish) Air Forces, and (Turkish) Naval Forces. The General Command and the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces sit in Ankara, the national capital, far away from the sea. The Navy (TR: "Donanma") Command and its Commander (normally a four-star admiral like his superior) are at shore in Gölcük. It is a simple fact. The problem is, while very few volunteers are trying to develop these cats with their subcats etc, some with little knowledge of the issues and less of English language come and send torpedos from unseen submarines. Sorry to use these words, but there is so much need of work force to put in order these things that some destroy, willingly or not. The only thing we do not need is sabotage. I'm ashamed to accept that we do not even have regular "personnell" cats, ranks, classes etc. I was looking at the image here of a famous Air Force(s) pilot, and I see that he was categorized as a "lieutenant"! I may be wrong, but I have difficulty finding proper classification of "military pilots" by force (Air, Sea, Land) although I see many people here contributing to Ottoman items. (I mean we could take a bit more care of today before going into details of the past.) I consider it my shame that Turkey has so many Aviation pioneers, like female acrobatic or combat pilots early in the past century, but until today or yesterday we did not even have a cat for them. I also consider it almost a personal fault that having -probably- one of the very few female commanders of an Air Force acrobacy team in the world, at present, I have not yet been able to reach the lady (major) to take a mobile phone shot of hers... Nothing to do with this cat? I'm explaining my disappointment that causes me to keep away from working in these areas; the reason for which they "suck". Sorry. Anybody else to give a helping hand? --E4024 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Since exactly "two years" by next month, we will be having "two cats for one" of our several military coups of the last century (1960). If one of the good colleagues who came to discuss that disruption had given a little more of their voluntary time (10-15 mins?) to "merge" those two cats instead of discussing about the issue (and criticising this user) now we could have one less problem and one less still unclosed 2017 CfDs. I know it is a voluntary work and no-one has an obligation to reduce by one the military coups in my country, but I with all sincerity wish to build on Commons, escaping only from areas -like these- where discussion, to my taste, has flared up. As my doc says, I also need to sleep a bit more. Therefore I will avoid making links to the other cats with futile discussions, all in the area of the Armed Forces of Turkey. P. D. Imagine if someone had made changes that led to make the number of military coups in Turkey one less than in real life; would nobody do anything? Whatever. Thank you very much if anyone read all this. --E4024 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: This category name is consistent with a decision made long ago (regrettably in my opinion) to name all navy categories "Navy of country" instead of their correct proper name. This is probably because some countries have had multiple navies in their history and the official names of navies do not look neat and consistent in Category:Navy by country. However, I would prefer that such categories (as well as air forces, armies, and other military organizations) be named as with other organizations on Commons, that is by their proper name. "Navy of Turkey" is an exonym imposed on it by Commons solely for categorization that is unnecessary. In fact most of the sub cats of these "Navy of country" cats are by the actual name of the navy or other branch. I would like to see this category renamed Category:Turkish Naval Forces (their official English moniker), but this decision really should be made at the Category:Navy by country or even Category:Military by country level as it applies to a lot more than just Turkey. Josh (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: Closed (as result of the larger 'navy by country' change, rename Category:Navy of Turkey to Category:Turkish Naval Forces) Josh (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
OTRS permission received for this organisation. Standard category at Category:Files by Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust. This category will be no use any longer. The same can be confirmed the author. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep both category. I have moved Category:Files by Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust to its parente category Category:Gujarati Vishwakosh. -Gazal world (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Gazal world: This seems backwards. The files are not from the encyclopedia, so they shouldn't be in a subcat of the encyclopedia. Shouldn't Category:Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust be the parent with both Category:Files by Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust and Category:Gujarati Vishwakosh under it as they are seperate works of Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust? Josh (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep this is a valid category for images of the encyclopedia. Images by the Trust should be sorted separately. Josh (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 03:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
George Ho has requested a move to Category:Ronald Brown (English mathematician) on the grounds that there is more than one mathematician by that name. The DAB page at en:Ronald Brown (English wikipedia) only notes one. Do we have photos of another? Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was unable to find another with some Googling. BMacZero (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Here are the photos of the other Ronald Brown: File:Ronald Brown 1985 (portion enlarged).jpg and File:Ronald Brown 1985.jpg. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, I notice they have 3 pictures of "Ronald Brown" and one looks quite like the one in Category:Ronald Brown (mathematician). Are those really the same men? Perhaps they have made a mistake? As far as I can see, there's no indication of who the Ronald Brown is in their images. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I contacted one of photographers about this and am awaiting response. George Ho (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The photographer said that both mathematicians of the same name are two different people. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, I notice they have 3 pictures of "Ronald Brown" and one looks quite like the one in Category:Ronald Brown (mathematician). Are those really the same men? Perhaps they have made a mistake? As far as I can see, there's no indication of who the Ronald Brown is in their images. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Here are the photos of the other Ronald Brown: File:Ronald Brown 1985 (portion enlarged).jpg and File:Ronald Brown 1985.jpg. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@George Ho: Did the photographer give you any information about who the cleanshaven Ronald Brown is? We can't find any information online to suggest he is notable. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- He gave me this link, indicating the existence of the other Ronald Brown: https://math.hawaii.edu/wordpress/people/ronaldb/. George Ho (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, BMacZero, and George Ho: Any objection to moving Category:Ronald Brown (mathematician) to Category:Ronald Brown (English mathematician) and creating Category:Ronald Brown (American mathematician) for the images File:Ronald Brown 1985 (portion enlarged).jpg and File:Ronald Brown 1985.jpg? Josh (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Works for me. A little weird to have a category for what seems to be a non-notable mathematician, but whatever. There are two files - keep them together. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry for belated reply. Anyways, no objections from me. --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Done as suggested by Joshbaumgartner. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
How is Category:Food products different from Category:Food ? We need a definition here. Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge into Category:Food.Differentiating food that involves some arbitrary level of processing (per Themightyquill, this would have to be defined), might be valid, but I am not sure it is of value to categorize by it. If someone has a particular standard they want to propose, then we can evaluate it, but until then, I think the line is arbitrary and yet unclear to most users, so upmerge. Josh (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Apples and tomatoes are "food", if they are processed and enter into a jar or can they are "food products". (Of course still they are food, remember The Pianist with his can of pickles; when he puts his can on the piano beside the German officer's hat, they become equals. Alright, not everybody saw the film a dozen times!.. :) On the other hand, Josh is right in his worries, when many people see apples, all red, all the same size, packed industrially, what are they, fruits (primary food) or food products? Go on Josh. --E4024 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep both: like any other product, food products are made to sell, in a shop or on a market; food can also be homemade, in a kitchen or coming from a kitchen garden, not to sell, but for personal use or to give to family or friends. So apples packed industrially or displayed in a market stall are products AND food; if apples were picked from the apple tree in your garden or are laying in a fruit bowl, then they are just food. Please don't interrupt the category string of Products. JopkeB (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- You also look right. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Okay, but by that standard, Category:Food products by country should not contain Category:Groats by country or Category:Food ingredients by country. Category:Food products of Albania should not contain Category:Beverages of Albania or Category:Cheese from Albania. Similarly, Category:Food products of Canada shouldn't contain Category:Beers of Canada, Category:Breads of Canada, Category:Cheese from Canada, Category:Cider from Canada, Category:Fruit of Canada, Category:Maple syrup, Category:Organic food in Canada, Category:Pancakes of Canada, etc.
- Should Category:Food products of Argentina contain Category:Agricultural products of Argentina? If so, it shouldn't contain Category:Milk in Argentina or Category:Vegetables of Argentina. If Category:Agricultural products is also only for commercially processed/packaged/sold products, then it shouldn't contain Category:Maize by country, Category:Milk by country, Category:Rice by country, Category:Vegetables by country, or Category:Wheat by country.
- Aside from Category:Brand name food products, Category:Food product brands, Category:Food products of restaurants, Category:Food products in markets and Category:Seafood products, is there anything that should go here? Nothing without "products" in the name, I guess. Then the same should be true of all subcategories of Category:Food products by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thank you for your research. You are right that not all those categories contain subcategories whith the right name. That might also have practical reasonsː in a lot of subcategories often files of products and other food items are mixed; it might be hard to seperate them, and moreoverː seperation would not make these categories more attractive. But is this a decisive reason to delete the Category:Food products and all the categories beginning with that name? I don't think so. A lot of the subcategories do make sense, like the ones you mentioned after "Aside from". For that alone I would keep these categories. For me it is good information, and I guess for a lot of others as well. Perhaps a review of the category would already make it better. JopkeB (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you'll note that I never suggested deletion - I was just looking for a clear definition. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: @Joshbaumgartner: @E4024: and others: Suggestion for conclusions:
- The difference between food and food products: food products are for
sellingcommercial purposes; as soon they are bought (or harvested) by consumers they turn into food. Food brands, food factories, food shops and food markets all are about food products. Food in consumer bags, ingredients for cooking, meals and eating are about food. - Categories that are typical for food products: Category:Brand name food products, Category:Food product brands, Category:Food products of restaurants, Category:Food products in markets, Category:Seafood products AND Category:Food retail (the last one is added by me).
- Both categories should not be merged. So keep the two categories.
- Add a header reminding people that items in Category:Food products should qualify both as Category:Food and Category:Products to be in food products.
- Category:Food products is a subcategory of Category:Food. The same for their subcategories.
- Categories that contain a mix of food and food products should have a Food category as a parent category. Also other food-related items that are not products belong in the parent Category:Food.
- Perhaps a review of the Category:Food products might be a good idea.
JopkeB (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I withdraw the suggestion to merge, as clearly there is a clear scope possible for a products sub-category of food. If 'food' is the general topic for all food-related matters, and 'food products' is for actual items made by humans as food, then I see no problem maintaining the two, and JopkeB has a pretty good summation of how to manage them. The only part I do have an issue with is the 'for selling' part, as I don't think we need to divide based on intent here. If I make some tortilla chips for me to eat and another batch of them to sell and take a picture of each, should those pictures (essentially indistinguishable from each other) belong in two different categories? I would suggest that both belong in 'food products' as both are human-made items of food. Now, if you want to have a further sub of 'food products' that is for commercially manufactured food products, I could see that being fine. Josh (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Josh, for you comment. This brings us a step forward. The only thing I do not agree with, is your assumption that 'food products' is about all items made by humans as food. In my opinion not all food that is made by humans are products, just the ones that are made for selling. The food that is growing in a kitchen garden and the food that we make at home to serve as a meal are both not products. I agree with you that if you make tortilla chips for yourself to eat and another batch of them to sell and take a picture of each, then there might not be a difference between the two pictures. According to conclusion 5 both pictures should be in a 'Food' category, not in a 'Food product' category. But there is a difference if you put a sign near the latter with "for sale" or with a price tag. Then this picture should be in a 'Food product' category. JopkeB (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Looking at the base category Category:Products, that seems a good baseline. I would agree that not all human-made items are products in this case, but anything that is reasonably saleable or normally able to be marketed would qualify, whether or not that particular item is actually on sale. I would suggest that since potato chips are a normally saleable or marketable item, they would be a food product, even if the particular chips in question are not on the market (a demo package of Lay's would be a product, even if marked 'not for sale'). In any case, I don't think we need to adjudicate every possibility here. Let's keep the two categories and simply add a header reminding folks that items in Category:Food products should qualify both as Category:Food and Category:Products to be in food products. Food-related items that are not products belong in the parent Category:Food. If there is an actual case where there is disagreement over where to put it, the individual cases can be discussed on their merits. Josh (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good point: an item that is a normally saleable or marketable item, is a food product, even if the particular item in question is not on the market; demo packages are products as well, though not for sale. I changed the definition from "saleable" into "commercial purposes". I add your other remarks about adding a header to the categories as well to the conclusions (nr 4).
- Good point: an item that is a normally saleable or marketable item, is a food product, even if the particular item in question is not on the market; demo packages are products as well, though not for sale. I changed the definition from "saleable" into "commercial purposes". I add your other remarks about adding a header to the categories as well to the conclusions (nr 4).
It looks like we have come to an agreement! I'll wait another two weeks before closing this discussion and making the changes, so others could still add their comment to this discussion as well. JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... A photo of a potato on sale in a grocery store: Food product or not? If yes, is a photo of the same potato sitting on my table a food product? What about a doughnut in a restaurant vs at home? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- A photo of a potato on sale in a grocery store is a Food product, a photo of the same potato on your table is just food. Practically: Category:Potatoes in grocery stores has Category:Potato products or Category:Potato as a product as a parent category. A doughnut in a restaurant is a food product as long as it is not served on a table; one at a house is just food. Again: when this causes problems, you can always categorize it as just food. JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify... A photo of a potato on sale in a grocery store: Food product or not? If yes, is a photo of the same potato sitting on my table a food product? What about a doughnut in a restaurant vs at home? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions: see above (1-7). I implemented the action points. JopkeB (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Necessary? E4024 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- @E4024: Maybe you could say why you think it might not be necessary...? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- If it is only about Alec Baldwin, I doubt it is necessary. --E4024 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Question Is it normal practice to categorize actors under each of the films they are in? I am not too familiar with our celebrity categorization schemes, but that does not seem like a great idea (could be dozens or even hundreds for some prolific actors). If not though, this category has no purpose because even its one category shouldn't be there. Josh (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, that's the standard practice. Delete since Alec Baldwin is already in Category:Thomas & Friends cast members. —howcheng {chat} 17:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Solution per user:Howcheng which seems uncontroversial Estopedist1 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The platforms of Aichi Loop Line and JR Central are very close to each other in Okazaki Station, it's very possible to take a photo showing platforms of both companies, like File:岡崎駅 - panoramio.jpg. Also these 2 companies sharing one station building, so now I think it's not necessary to create categories for both companies. そらみみ (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
愛知環状鉄道は元 国鉄岡多線でしたから駅を共有しています。被写体のメインの対象が愛知環状鉄道のものはOkazaki Stationの付随カテゴリとしてOkazaki Station (AIKAN)として分離し、Okazaki Station (JR Central)のようなものは不要でしたが、元の状態に戻しても、そうでなくともどちらでもいいです。--HQA02330 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- かしこまりました。提案当時の考えとして、岡崎駅は両会社が同じ構内だから、駅舎とプラットホーム自体が離れている勝川駅などと違い、わざわざ分割したら一枚の写真につくカテゴリがかえって多くなると思います。特にホームを撮影する場合は両方の会社のホームを一緒に撮ってしまう可能性が高いと思いますので、愛環とJRのカテゴリを再びCategory:Okazaki Stationへ統一することを提案します。特定の会社の駅名標ならCategory:Train station signs of Central Japan Railway CompanyとCategory:Train station signs of Aichi Loop Lineを追加すれば済むと思います。--そらみみ (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Okazaki Station (JR Central) と Okazaki Station (Aichi Loop Line) に入っているファイルをOkazaki Station に移動することで問題ありません。
別件ですが、Mikawa-Kashima Station というカテゴリがあり、駅名標では「MIKAWA KASHIMA」とハイフンがないという理由でカテゴリ名を Mikawa Kashima Station と変更すると別の場所でリンクエラーが発生することがあります。 So now I think it's not necessary to change category names with trivial reasons.--HQA02330 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- かしこまりました。ご指摘はごもっともですが、名鉄の公式英語サイトでもハイフンなしの表記が採用しているので、それに準拠して変更しました。ちなみに現在はWikidataとの連動により、ウィキペディアの記事ページの左側からもリンクできるので、下のあのテンプレートは意味がないではないかと思います。--そらみみ (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. @そらみみ and HQA02330: it is hard to understand this mostly Japanese category-for-discussion (CFD), but I see that the nominated category is redirected to Category:Okazaki Station and the latter category has two subcategories: Category:JR Central and Category:Aichi Loop Line. Is this CFD solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I think it’s solved by
those 2 subcategoriesthis subcategory being redirected to category:Okazaki Station. Sorry for leaving this CFD for a long time.--そらみみ (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)correcting--そらみみ (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed. This category is redirected to Category:Okazaki Station by the creator [1]. Sorry for being late.--そらみみ (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Persian poets. The language is valid for any nationality. Turkish poets, French poets but also Poets from Turkey, Poets from Belgium etc. E4024 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd instead propose deleting both Category:Persian poets (Category:Persian people is not otherwise divided by occupation) and Category:Poets in Persian, with all content moved into Category:Persian-language poets (which follows Commons standard format). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Poets in Persian and Category:Persian poets into Category:Persian-language poets. Categorizing poets by the language they use makes sense, but by nationality seems trivial. Josh (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Josh; let's mold all poet and writer cats into the above shape. (Category:Persian-language poets, Category:English-language poets, Category:Greek-language writers etc.) --E4024 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Poets in Persian and Category:Persian poets into Category:Persian-language poets. Categorizing poets by the language they use makes sense, but by nationality seems trivial. Josh (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ojo: The above will also prevent -sorry- nonsense like using the "Category:Writers from Greece" for some Arab, Jew, Greek, Armenian or whatsoever escribano who lived a couple of centuries before Christ and far away from what we know as Greece. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Two nominated categories are merged into Category:Persian-language poets Estopedist1 (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
How many of them? Turk-bashing does unite left and right in some countries, right? (Or maybe we will find out more riots in Istanbul in 1955...) When are you going to write about the suffferings of Turks in Western Thrace? (They had a real pogrom, like most other Turks left out of Turkey; remember the concentration camps in Greek Cyprus? People needed documents to travel 15 km.) Please stop using Commons to make propaganda inventing unnecessary cats. E4024 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- When Greeks kill Turks in leaps and bounds we call it "Eastern Marmara (1921)", in the case of Turks beating a couple of Greeks or wounding them we call it "massacre" or "pogrom". (This is called "NPOV". :) I am boldly moving this to Category:6-7 September Events (6-7 Eylül Olayları) as they are widely known. I will also categorize it better. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- When naming things in Commons, we usually use the names of the equivalent article in the various Wikipedias. And the name is indeed "pogrom" in all the major Wikipedias except the Turkish one (no surprise there). Compared to that, the previous name in Commons was rather harmless. The heaps of whataboutism in the OP's argument, or the belittling of the event as "Turks beating a cople of Greeks", on the other hand, is the most sure-fire way for the OP to announce his own biases. So definitely oppose and revert. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me this is a clear example of a name change that is likely to be controversial, and therefore, a good time not to act boldly. "Instanbul pogrom" seems to be commonly used in most wikipedias, and there is an extensive debate at en:Talk:Istanbul_pogrom#Requested_move explaining their choice. We'd need a very solid argument and some support before justifying a move here. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Inadvertently the OP has raised a good point here: perhaps the previous name should be changed, but to Category:Istanbul pogrom, which is the overwhelming use in almost all Wikipedia versions and reflects global usage. Per the OP's own argument, "riots" is rather tame for an event where people died, and which was a catalyst for the de facto end of Istanbul's Greek community. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Look at the terrible Turk and their biases reflected in edit summaries, these barbarians! --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your opinion is on record clearly enough, E4024; feeling slighted because of widespread biases against the Turks (which undoubtedly exist) does not justify minimizing their own culpability for crimes they committed, or the sufferings of others at their hands. "Justified" bias is still bias. You don't fix one wrong by whataboutism and applying the same wrong approach to others in turn. I am willing to admit that my people have done terrible things and learn from it, you apparently are not there yet. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
-
- I'm going to move to Category:Istanbul Pogrom, 1955 to match the wikipedia articles as common name (with some added disambiguation), unless anyone has a clear reason not to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Cplakidas: we should follow enwiki. User:Themightyquill's proposal (with little modifications: Category:Istanbul pogrom or Category:Istanbul pogrom, 1955) is logical and acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- My opinion, as stated above, is the same. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Istanbul Pogrom, 1955. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
SBaker43 has requested to move Category:Foster Falls, Tennessee to Category:Foster Falls (Tennessee) on the basis of consistency. Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I actually think the comma is more consistent here. It's a place in Tennessee, not a kind of Tennessee. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- In my experience, both syntaxes for "sub-places" are very common here. I do prefer the comma per Themightyquill, though. BMacZero (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- What consistency? ;) I also generally prefer the comma for geographical disambiguation. I do see parentheses used quite often for ‘non-populated places’ (meaning hydrographic features, mountains, &c.) however. This is sometimes convenient, when a name is used for both a geographic feature and a nearby town. It would be nice to establish a convention, but I won’t hold my breath … I also note that in some languages or styles the parentheses are standard for populated places as well, French-Canadian “Montréal (Québec)” for example.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. Keep both variants are massively used in Commons. If we ever have consensus for same type of renamings, the bots do the job --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to move. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ayia or Agia? Decide. The main cat is Agia but there is a gallery under Ayia Napa. E4024 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Boths spellings are in use. See: [2] and [3]. --LexICon (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Port of Agia Napa to match parent Category:Agia Napa. Josh (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Enwiki main article is under en:Ayia Napa, however enwiki article itself says that "officially romanised Agia Napa". If no objections then maybe we follow Commons parent category name "Agia Napa"? Noticing user:Joshbaumgartner--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@LexICon, E4024, and Estopedist1: Closed (no objection to move) Josh (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
We have a category tree for Category:Stadiums in Canada by city and one for Category:Indoor arenas in Canada, yet these have been inexplicably combined at Category:Stadiums and arenas in Edmonton, Category:Stadiums and arenas in Calgary, Category:Stadiums and arenas in Toronto, Category:Stadiums and arenas in Montreal, and Category:Stadiums and arenas in Quebec City. This doesn't exist for any other country. Obviously the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums will impact this category tree as well, but either way, these should not stay as they are. Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Stadiums and arenas in Calgary to Category:Sports venues in Calgary and do the same with the cited Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City categories as well. Josh (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. Move and delete/redirect the following categories:
- Category:Stadiums and arenas in Calgary --> Category:Sports venues in Calgary
- Category:Stadiums and arenas in Edmonton --> Category:Sports venues in Edmonton
- Category:Stadiums and arenas in Montreal --> Category:Sports venues in Montreal
- Category:Stadiums and arenas in Quebec City --> Category:Sports venues in Quebec City
- Category:Stadiums and arenas in Toronto --> Category:Sports venues in Toronto
--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Moving per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
User came in today and opened this cat. I do not see any other title in Category:Temporary exhibitions in National Museum of China that is written in this alphabet. E4024 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- These are Chinese characters. This catogory contains pictures taken by me at a temporary exhibition in NMC. For most exhibitions in NMC you can find the English name on the official website, but this exhibition last only one month and I did not find the official English title on the web. --Augusthaiho (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- In lieu of official translation, common translation is acceptable (my translation is suspectso please review:):
- Perhaps someone can improve these or maybe they are okay for the time being? Josh (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- i suggest renaming the exhibition to "Category:2018 exhibition of cultural property crimes at National Museum of China". -- RZuo (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
renamed to Category:2018 exhibition of efforts against cultural property crimes at National Museum of China.--RZuo (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:City quarters. ŠJů has proposed to move Category:City quarters to Category:City districts: "merge whole category trees, unclear distinction, causes needless duplication and disunity in many national subcategories." Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Disagree: large citeis make a distrinction between districts and quarters, the former being composed of the later (which themselves have neighborhoods). E.g. in France: Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Rennes. There are lot of examples in other large/dense cities all around the world where these cannot be merged. Don't assume thing for your single country: it's possible that for your living region there's no difference. But look at most capital cities aroudn the world, they have a more complex organization.
- Otherwise make sure that each country is sorted coherently: City districts are generally larger than City quarters, themselves containing Neighborhoods. verdy_p (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Verdy p and Themightyquill: Many cities have various names for their parts, and two or more levels of division, mostly in their local languages. However, local terminology very vary and some words (quarter, neighborhood) are used also informally. Maybe, for Anglophone cities, we can use their original terminology of division, although I am not sure that terms in one English-speaking country will exactly materially correspond to terms in all other English-speaking countries. But what with other coutries? E.g. Prague has 4 levels of division: the cadastral one (112 parts called "cadastral areas" or "local parts" or "municipal parts"), the self-governing (57 "city parts" or "municipal parts"), numbered administrative districts (22) and numbered territorial districts (10). But the 57 self-governings parts we call also "districts" here at Commons and frequently also at en:wiki. How to categorize them to the international category tree? Similar problem can be with country division units, e.g. Czechia has two division levels (okres, kraj = ca district, region), but Germany used literally equivalent terms (Kreis, Bezirk) upside down (Bezirk was larger than Kreis). In addition, two various Czech terms (obvod, okres) are literally translated as "district" to English (and English language is not able to distinguish them), and e.g. the word "region" can be used for completely different types of territorial units.
- Categorization within one city or one country should be properly structured and should reflect local terminology, but in an international comparison and international categories it is probably better not to compare nor distinguish individual types of territorial units because various systems of division are not fully compatible with each other. Such international categories are confusing and difficult to use. --ŠJů (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
See Category talk:City quarters for previous discussions since 2010. There are more potentially coinciding category trees:
- Category:City quarters
- Category:City districts
- Category:Boroughs
- Category:Neighborhoods
- Category:Suburbs
The terms can be ambiguous, especially in relation to non-English-speaking countries. --ŠJů (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's a reasonable argument to be made for grouping official subdivisions of cities into a single category and rather than dividing them by what they are called (except at a local level). But it seems to me that using Category:City districts would be confusing because it has both a general meaning (for us) and a specific meaning (in some cases/cities). Moreover, we already have a legitimate generic category tree at Category:City subdivisions by country, even if it is underused. I would certainly welcome making better use of "City subdivisions" and I can't see why anyone would argue. Getting consensus to merging/delete the rest will be a more difficult sell, I think. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Even the classification of "cities" is confusive: there are different statuses, depending on we refer to the administrative status as "municipalities" (but even the term "municipality" is not appropriate in some countries, where a municiplity is one of their possible status). Cities can be very large or very small, they may also exist as the center of a larger urban area/metropiltan area (also with their coubntry-specific terminology). Just look at the term "borough", it means different things in the US depending on the state... so the terminology also changes in countries that give some autonomy to their subdivisions; and not all of them are "federations", e.g. France is theoretically unified, but there are specific statuses for overseas
- The only terminology we can really use is "primary subdivision", "secondary subdivision", "tertiary subdivision" for the administrative status. And indepenantly there's the urban classification, based on population and maximum distance between individual settlements (residential or not). In summary we cannot, and must not unify these categories. Each unit has its own classification and other possible equivalences may exist in some countries, but with weakly equivalent relations (these equivalences are generally made only for statistical purposes, only to get the full coverage of a given territory, but without double-counting). verdy_p (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: Things like neighbourhoods and city quarters are often unofficial, so they don't always fit into the numbered subdivision tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- In many cases they are official and strictly organized. Also the talk above seems to assume that "suburbs", "boroughs", or "districts" are only used for "city" subdivisions. This is wrong. They may be also official administrartive boundaries independant of cities. As well "city" is also an official administrative status which may be independent of the actual urbanized area. There's no stadnard definition of what is a "city", as it is country-dependant (for some they are status for local/municipal government, for other they are defined by urban areas independantly of the local governement; and in various official "cities", the local government is named differently as "district"). This is more complex than what you think.
- I repeat it: DO NOT assume any international standardization of these terms. Categories like that wouldcontain entities from all countries of the world are in fact very weak, and wrong (and any attempt to rename categories just to match those "unified" categories will be even worse, cauysing severe errors when each country has its distinctions. verdy_p (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: I'm well aware of the complexity, and the challenges with using "city" but there are over 23000 categories using "by city" Category:Categories by city (flat list) without any clear unified definition of city, so we're unlikely to solve that problem here. Luckily, we're trying to solve a different problem in this particular discussion. I agree that neighbourhoods and city quarters are in some cases official and strictly organized, but since they are often not, relying entirely on "x-level subdivisions" doesn't work. Unofficial quarters and neighbourhoods need to go somewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The "flat lists" are technical only and hidden; they have no use for any navigation where they should all be sorted at least by country (but frequently by some primary division for large federated countries or countries). I don't care at all if this flat list is overpopulated (its only use will be by bots or for statistics, for maintenance only, or for considering if there are not some categorisation bugs in some templates, causing a suden massive growth or reduction of its statistics). If you were counting towns or villages, you would find even much more. Really we should not even need these "flat lists" that are just used as an hidden default for metacats. These flat lists are populated by metacats only if they exist for the criteria. Consider the categories of municipalities in France only, you would find up to over 36000 categories for many of there topics. If you looked at flat lists by region or departements in France only, give nthe number of topics that are categorized, you would also overpopulate such category. Flat lsits cause severe maintenance problems, they are too large, and in fact not needed at all (in addition, to feed them, the metacat tempalte has to perform costly parser calls with #ifexist (whose effect if even worse than just populating these flat lists unconditionally). I don't like and never use these flat lists that are unmanageable. verdy_p (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: I'm afraid you missed my point. I don't care about the flat list category. My point is that there are over 23000 categories using the ambiguous term "by city". Despite being ambiguous, it is widely used throughout commons instead of "by populated place." I'm not saying that it's a problem, but I don't think it has any important bearing, for the time being, on whether we merge Category:City quarters or Category:Neighbourhoods, or if we use Category:City subdivisions. If you want to ensure that city is never used ambiguously on commons, that belongs in a different discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: . I did not miss the point. There's a distinction between "populated place" and the other terms (which is a generic term encompassing all form of adminsitrative entities, including municipalities, cities, towns, villages, where some places may have two of these statues or only one...).
- Then there are at least 2 levels of subdivisions for cities or municipalities (sometimes more: in France you can find "arrondissement municipal" -- alias districts -- in Paris/Lyon/Marseille only, or "grand quartier" in other major cities like Nantes/Rennes/Nice/etc which you can as well translate approximately as "city district", then a second level with "quartier" which you could translate as "boroughs", then a third "sous-quartier" which you could translate approximately as "neighborhoods"), with their own designating term. But "boroughs" have a different meaning in UK and US (and in Alaska they are more like "counties" and are the first subdivision level of the state). In Louisiana, counties are named "parishes" to group municipalities (note that counties in US are grouping municipalities plus unorganized communities and indigenous reservations). Also in US and other federal countries (Brasil, India, Mexico), the district can be equivalent to a state, but managed locally by a municipality with specific status.
- In Spain there are territories that are grouped in comarcas or similar, and these territories are not all municipalities, some of them being managed collectively by several municipalities that "own" them in an indivision. You cannot apply generic rules internationally. The situation is very complex, and there's no clear definition of what is a "city": it could be an urbanized area (defined by statistic institutes) including a full metropolitan area, sometimes larger (because the metropolitan area had its limits fixed by law), or the whole territory of a municipality that includes several vilalges and rural areas, the term being defined as "city" most often because of the total municipal population, or because of historical status granted by law (in order to transfer some additional powers to the local council), it could as well designate a large group of cooperating municipalies ("métropole" in France).
- Countries are also competing to promote their cities by growing them in importance with new artificial boundaries or because of political decisions to enforce the cooperation of local entities, and a city can then become a very large region with a complex structure. This structure also evolves rapidly in developing countries (notably their national capital, or capitals of large regions).
- If you take London the term "City" is smaller than the actual city, it is a small part of "Inner London" (the historic municipality) which is itself now a part of "Greater London" now just named "London" even if it encompasses multiple municipalities with local councils.
- If you take Berlin, the city includes many villages that were later turned into "adminsitrative districts" but keeping their local organization as villages, including their shape.
- We can't uniformize that internationally. And in fact all reports about "largest cities of the world" contradict each other because they use different definitions and approximations.
- And given that there may then be "populated places" (or some varying types) within other "populated places", we need subcategories (like "by city", "by district", "by village", "by island"...) and we cannot deduce any international relationship between them: the relations are purely local and defined by their parent entity. verdy_p (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a rough consensus to keep the categories as it is. There's no need to uniformise the categorisation as the definition of city subdivisions (and even cities) vary from country to country. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the educational purpose of these pictures? Most are not even used in articles 2600:8802:4201:1800:5C7A:E4A8:726C:44 18:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I reject looking at the pics. "Being naturist", is it not an adult choice? Children can only be "naked" (because they are that poor or due to heat or because they are having a bath etc) and not for being naturist. At the most they can be accompanying their naturist parents who decide for them. Children are not naturist. Blow up this cat. --E4024 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. In 2017 this category was already under discussion (see hatnote). The result was No consensus to delete or upmerge. Discussions about concrete files are not the subject of categories-for-discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
No action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)